Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum

[Wake]

If this forum is still in beta, and the software is possible, I could try making a thread in this forum with that ability. Being a moderator for Mafia games, I understand and have experienced thread-banning players who would not cooperate or adhere to the rules. As there, if we were to test this, I would issue a general warning, and after that, thread-ban the deliberately-offending poster.

 

[Wake]

If it were possible... that the thread-starter could only thread-ban posters only from his or her thread... that'd solve it in a heart-beat. If the software makes it possible, that would make all of this possible without putting a burden on staff, if at all.

I understand and I really appreciate the suggestion. I'm just struggling with whether I want even that small amount of power. But if we do initiate that capability for the OP, and the OP exercised it, again I would not want that kind of ban to go against a member's permanent record.

As I envision it, I don't think any of the penalties should affect the offending poster's record.

If the poster is disrupting, the OP can thread-ban that player, but it would not affect that person's record. It would only serve to maintain peace on that one and only thread.

If that poster is thread-banned, he's done, kaput, from that one thread, problem-solved, no muss and fuss for anyone else, including staff. This includes the issue of the permanent record. Just give the disruptive person a permanent vacation from the thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

ogue

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.

That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.

I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP. I was referring to actually controlling the flow of opinion -- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with. If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.

The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ. Assuming those rules get enforced.

I wouldn't think the OP could delete posts--I really don't like the idea of deleting posts except those that are extremely unacceptable and that should be done by a mod. But I sure would like a bit more ability to enforce the thread rules.

 

[Wake]

The OP wouldn't delete or edit posts. Opinions would be allowed, but if any of it involves a nasty, mean, or personal element then it should be dealt with.

If a discussion is made on topic X, but a couple posters decide to make it a discussion about topic C, and some of them do start crossing the line, then they can and should be thread-banned by the OP. That is it. No more, no less, peaceful thread.

 

[Pogo]

ogue

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.

That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.

I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP. I was referring to actually controlling the flow of opinion -- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with. If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.

The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ. Assuming those rules get enforced.

I wouldn't think the OP could delete posts--I really don't like the idea of deleting posts except those that are extremely unacceptable and that should be done by a mod. But I sure would like a bit more ability to enforce the thread rules.

-- which means treating any opinion you don't like as being "against the thread rules" and having a mod remove them. As I said, it's already happened.

When "enforcing thread rules" is interpreted that broadly, nobody gets to express an opinion that doesn't wash with what the OP wants to see.

And that's just wrong. It produces an echo chamber.

 

[Foxfyre]

ogue

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.

That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.

I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP. I was referring to actually controlling the flow of opinion -- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with. If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.

The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ. Assuming those rules get enforced.

I wouldn't think the OP could delete posts--I really don't like the idea of deleting posts except those that are extremely unacceptable and that should be done by a mod. But I sure would like a bit more ability to enforce the thread rules.

-- which means treating any opinion you don't like as being "against the thread rules" and having a mod remove them. As I said, it's already happened.

When "enforcing thread rules" is interpreted that broadly, nobody gets to express an opinion that doesn't wash with what the OP wants to see.

And that's just wrong. It produces an echo chamber.

But if it happens, how does that affect you in any way? If you find that intolerable or you get banned for disagreeing with the OP, you simply go do something else. I can't imagine reporting or warning anybody, much less banning somebody, because he/she disagreed with me. I would guess at least 90% of USMBers wouldn't do that. But if somebody did, what's the harm? The OP is seen as a jerk and oh well.

The purpose of the teensy power Wake is suggesting here is to relieve the mods of a lot of unnecessary hassle and allow others to have a peaceful discussion sans those who do their damndest to disrupt threads and make sure no peaceful discussion can happen.

 

[Wake]

-- which means treating any opinion you don't like as being "against the thread rules" and having a mod remove them. As I said, it's already happened.

When "enforcing thread rules" is interpreted that broadly, nobody gets to express an opinion that doesn't wash with what the OP wants to see.

And that's just wrong. It produces an echo chamber.

So, please reread the post.

It's not about differences of opinion. Those are acceptable. It's when it crosses the line by being dishonest, disingenuous, and meant to cause harm and discord that it crosses the line.

Unlike some, I don't mind differing opinions. They are what makes me grow as a person. You can differing opinions while showing respect, maturity, and civility.

That is the bottom line, and there is nothing wrong with that. An echo chamber is where you don't allow differences of opinion, including those that are in the acceptable range of civility, politeness, etc. That is not this, and I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Just report the offending posts and the mods can remove them or give infractions or whatever and the thread should be allowed to continue just like it's done everywhere else.

 

[Gracie]

If you start a thread in the CDZ, it means exactly what it implies. CLEAN DEBATE. The op should be able to have some kind of ability to remove someone that is not CLEANLY debating and only is there to cause a ruckus.
I liken it to opening a small cafe that serves donuts and tea. Someone comes in and demands a beer. You don't serve beer. You don't have beer. The person starts throwing chairs around calling you a jerk for not having a beer, and after all, it IS a public cafe although beer is NOT on the menu. Do you have the right to kick this person out of the cafe when other patrons get to leave to get away from this person? Yes.
Same concept.

 

[Gracie]

And, it eases the problems for staff...who I'm sure are getting mighty fed up chasing people around to give them diapers that keep being torn off for freedom of pooping all over the floor. This is a big board. Thousands of posts. Being in the CDZ eases some of those duties and headaches.

 

[Wake]

This would give leverage to thread-starters who want a peaceful, structured discussion without their threads being derailed or ruined by packs of unruly people.

 

[Gracie]

Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?

 

[Wake]

Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?

If this structured debate thing is in the CDZ (haven't checked yet, lol) then yes.

 

[Gracie]

Does it matter if its structured or clean? If someone can't have a discussion/debate on any topic without someone pulling down their pants and pooping on the floor to where the others who ARE discussing and debating civilly are actually leaving....then why bother to open the topic to begin with? They will just find another cafe that serves donuts and tea. Not beer and temper tantrums and poop all over the floor.

 

[Wake]

Does it matter if its structured or clean? If someone can't have a discussion/debate on any topic without someone pulling down their pants and pooping on the floor to where the others who ARE discussing and debating civilly are actually leaving....then why bother to open the topic to begin with? They will just find another cafe that serves donuts and tea. Not beer and temper tantrums and poop all over the floor.

If those creating these threads are provided a means to maintain order in their threads, it will cut down the level of disruption significantly. All it would take is a few clicks.

On the leaving part, it wouldn't be good to have them leave this site. If we make this area of USMB that encourages structured, civil discussion with the addition of granting the OP the ability to thread-ban disruptive members, it would create an atmosphere conducive to worthwhile discussion. It would help in attracting and maintaining people who don't like the toxic chaos found in some of the political threads elsewhere on this forum.

 

[Gracie]

Does it matter if its structured or clean? If someone can't have a discussion/debate on any topic without someone pulling down their pants and pooping on the floor to where the others who ARE discussing and debating civilly are actually leaving....then why bother to open the topic to begin with? They will just find another cafe that serves donuts and tea. Not beer and temper tantrums and poop all over the floor.

If those creating these threads are provided a means to maintain order in their threads, it will cut down the level of disruption significantly. All it would take is a few clicks.

On the leaving part, it wouldn't be good to have them leave this site. If we make this area of USMB that encourages structured, civil discussion with the addition of granting the OP the ability to thread-ban disruptive members, it would create an atmosphere conducive to worthwhile discussion. It would help in attracting and maintaining people who don't like the toxic chaos found in some of the political threads elsewhere on this forum.

Agreed. But, if it is a willy nilly OP Has Thread Banning Power over someone, it can and will be abused. So I would whittle it down to only a few forums within the whole board that is USMB. Religion would be one forum. CDZ another one.

 

[Gracie]

For example....Jeri starts threads in Religion forum and gets some hassle for it by those NOT christian. Sure, state your belief/case but it should be to learn or teach or muse on. Not belittle. And atheists have no business going in there just to ridicule those who do believe. When they do...and if they are not trying to understand or want others to understand their point of view in a civil manner..then make them go bye bye. They can start their own thread on the whys and wherefores of not believing.
If we could be allowed to moderate ourselves to some degree, it would be less hassle for staff, and members enjoy being here more often if there is some kind of structured protection against that sort of thing. Down There (FZ, etc)..they have their "spot". Where is ours?

 

[Foxfyre]

Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?

If this structured debate thing is in the CDZ (haven't checked yet, lol) then yes.

The SDZ is not in the CDZ. It is in the general forum area because there are no restrictions on subject matter and if the OP doesn't want a civil debate, he/she can have an uncivil one which is not allowed in the CDZ. Structured Discussion is intended to be what the OP wants it to be.

 

[Judicial review]

Gracie - WTF Woman? Read CK post!!!!!

 

[Wolfsister77]

Not sure why the OP should get the power to remove people. That is the mod's responsibilities. It would be better to report them and have their posts deleted or have the mod thread ban them or give them warnings, infractions, whatever. It will be abused otherwise where people will remove people simply for disagreeing with them and what a pain in the ass to give individual power to certain people plus the complaints to staff if people feel they are being treated unfairly-nope not worth it.